Search

The 2000-2001 and the 2022-2023 Taliban opium bans were and could be two of the largest ever disruptions to a major illegal drug market. To help understand potential implications of the current ban for Europe, this paper analyzes how opioid markets in seven Baltic and Nordic countries responded to the earlier ban, using literature review, key informant interviews, and secondary data analysis. The seven nations' markets responded in diverse ways, including rebounding with the same drug (heroin in Norway), substitution to a more potent opioid (fentanyl replacing heroin in Estonia), and substitution to one with lower risk of overdose (buprenorphine replacing heroin in Finland). The responses were not instantaneous, but rather evolved, sometimes over several years. This variety suggests that it can be hard to predict how drug markets will respond to disruptions, but two extreme views can be challenged. It would be naive to imagine that drug markets will not adapt to shocks, but also unduly nihilistic to presume that they will always just bounce back with no lasting effects. Substitution to another way of meeting demand is possible, but that does not always negate fully the benefits of disrupting the original market. Nonetheless, there is historical precedent for a European country's opioid market switching to synthetic opioids when heroin supplies were disrupted. Given how much that switch has increased overdose rates in Canada and the United States, that is a serious concern for Europe at present. A period of reduced opioid supply may be a particularly propitious time to expand treatment services (as Norway did in the early 2000s)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Jalal et al. discovered that between 1979 and 2020 total rates and counts of fatal drug overdoses in the United States exhibited exponential growth at a very steady rate even though deaths from individual drugs did not. That is a startling result because it means that the different drugs are in effect "taking turns", with one growing faster just as another drug's death rate growth ebbs. That raises the question of whether this steadiness in the all-drug death rates is in some sense just a coincidence peculiar to the United States or whether it might reflect some more general phenomenon and so manifest in other countries., Methods: We fit the same model used by Jalal et al. to data on drug-related death rates for the countries of the United Kingdom., Results: The main finding is largely a failure to replicate the United States result. Simple graphical display of the trends and a number of statistical measures show that the growth in the United Kingdom was not only slower than in the United States, it was also less steady, with the exception of Northern Ireland., Conclusions: Steady exponential growth in the all-drugs mortality rate may be a phenomenon specific to certain contexts. It remains an open question whether the explanation of steady exponential growth in the United States and Northern Ireland relates to demand and supply mechanisms, to social and political conditions, or to coincidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None to declare., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nations wrestle with whether to prohibit products that can harm consumers and third parties but whose prohibition creates illegal markets. For example, cannabis is banned in most of the world, but supply for non-medical use has been legalized in Uruguay, Canada, and much of the United States and possession restrictions have been liberalized in other countries. Likewise, supply and possession of fireworks have been subject to varying degrees of prohibition in multiple countries, with those bans prompting significant evasion., Methods: Current and past history of fireworks regulations, sales, and harms are reviewed and contrasted with those for cannabis. The focus is on the United States, but literature from other countries is incorporated when possible and appropriate. This extends the insightful literature comparing drugs to other vices (such as gambling and prostitution) by comparing a drug to a risky pleasure that is not seen as a vice but which has been subject to prohibition., Results: There are many parallels between fireworks and cannabis in legal approaches, harms to "users", harms to others, and other externalities. In the U.S. the timing of prohibitions were similar, with prohibitions on fireworks being imposed a little later and repealed a little sooner. Internationally, the countries that are strictest with fireworks are not always those that are strictest with drugs. By some measures, harms are of roughly similar magnitude. During the last years of U.S. cannabis prohibition, there were about 10 emergency department (ED) events per million dollars spent on both fireworks and illegal cannabis, but fireworks generated very roughly three times as many ED events per hour of use/enjoyment. There are also differences, e.g., punishments were less harsh for violating fireworks prohibitions, fireworks consumption is heavily concentrated in just a few days or weeks per year, and illegal distribution is primarily of diverted legal products, not of illegally produced materials., Conclusions: The absence of hysteria over fireworks problems and policies suggests that societies can address complex tradeoffs involving risky pleasures without excessive acrimony or divisiveness when that product or activity is not construed as a vice. However, the conflicted and time-varying history of fireworks bans also show that difficulty balancing freedoms and pleasure with harms to users and others is not restricted to drugs or other vices. Use-related harms fell when fireworks were banned and rose when those bans were repealed, so fireworks prohibitions can be seen as "working" from a public health perspective, but not well enough for bans to be employed in all times or places., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Cannabis policy is developing faster than empirical evidence about policy effects. With a panel of experts in substance use policy development and research, we identified key cannabis policies and their provisions enacted by U.S. states; rated their theoretical efficacy in a restrictive form for reducing problematic use and impaired driving in the context of a recreational cannabis market as judged by experts; and rated the strength of evidence for each policy., Methods: Using a modified Delphi approach, 9 panelists rated the comparative efficacy of 18 state cannabis policies for reducing youth use of cannabis, excessive cannabis use among the general population, and cannabis-impaired driving. Each outcome was rated separately using a Likert scale, and panelists also rated the strength of evidence supporting each efficacy rating. Investigators provided descriptions of each policy so that the nine panelists had similar conceptions of each policy., Results: State monopoly (state owns all production, manufacturing, wholesale, and retail operations) was rated as the most effective policy for all three outcome areas. Restrictions on retail physical availability, taxes, retail price restrictions, and retail operations restrictions were also highly rated for all three outcomes. Policies regulating cannabis businesses and products were judged more effective than policies targeting consumer use and behavior. Panelists reported there was little or no direct evidence from the cannabis policy literature for most of the included policies., Conclusion: These ratings can facilitate research as well as policy-making decisions. A relatively small number of policies were judged to be highly effective across all three domains, indicating that for the most part adult excessive use, youth use, and impaired driving can all be reduced with the same set of policies; these policies tended to target the behaviors of businesses rather than consumers. The low levels of direct evidence available to inform policy ratings, as reported by the policy panelists, makes clear the need for ongoing and sustained cannabis policy research., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Background: The illegal drug trade is often, and plausibly, asserted to be the largest illegal market, globally and in many individual countries. It is also claimed that a large share of its revenues is laundered, though there are no estimates of that volume. We provide rough estimates of that proportion and its primary determinants., Methods and Data: This paper presents a model of a multi-tiered drug distribution network that is parameterized with data based on one typical, well-studied case, namely British Colombia's market for illegal opioids, supplemented by a corresponding economic interpretation of what determines the share of drug trade revenues that need to be laundered. Sensitivity with respect to key parameters is analyzed., Findings: We suggest that less than half and perhaps no more than a quarter of revenues from established drug markets need laundering. Key parameters governing this proportion include the price mark-up across distribution levels, transaction volumes at each market level, and the capacity of market participants to spend cash on daily living expenses., Conclusion: This model permits estimation of the scale of money laundering associated with a particular drug market. It suggests that there are limits on money laundering controls as a way of reducing drug supply - although money laundering investigations may still be an effective way to identify and investigate high-level drug traffickers., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest None to declare., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KH has been supported by the Esther Ting Memorial Professorship at Stanford University School of Medicine and research grants from the US Veterans Administration Health Services Research and Development Service (RCS 04-141-3, HX-12-001, and HX002714-01A2), the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (3UG1 DA015815-17S4 and 2UG1DA015815-19), the US Food and Drug Administration, Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the County of Santa Clara California, and the American Board of Family Medicine. He has received speaking honoraria and travel expenses from the American College of Medical Toxicology, Arizona State University, Barclays Bank, Caron Foundation, the University of Florida, the New York Museum of Modern Art, Syracuse University, West Virginia University School of Medicine, and the West Virginia Medical Professionals Health Program. He has received writing honoraria or royalties from the Association of Psychological Science, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Brookings Institution, Cambridge University Press, and Washington Monthly. He has been a paid consultant to AELIS Pharma, Harvard Medical School, and Harvard University Press. CLS has been employed by Stanford University, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Heluna Health, and the Los Angeles LGBT Center. She has received research funding or stipends from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01DA050771, T32DA035165), the RAND Opioid Policy Tools and Information Center), Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, and UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, and speaking honoraria or travel expenses from Emory University, New York University, UCLA, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Southern California, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Chicago, the University of Western Ontario, the Nevada State Medical Association, RAND, the University of California, Irvine, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, College on Problems of Drug Dependence, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, HIV Research for Prevention, Addiction Health Services Research, and the American Psychopathological Association. CMA has been supported by the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, and by research grants from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA034634, K01DA041628, U2CDA050097, R01DA049776, and R01DA052425), the US National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (R01AA029097 and R01AA029821), and the South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services, and has been a paid consultant to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, RTI International, the Medical University of South Carolina, the State of Pennsylvania Department of Public Health, and the State of Illinois Division of Health Care and Family Services. ASBB has been supported by grants from the US National Institutes for Health (R01 DA045705), the US Veterans Health Administration (IIR 13-322 and C19 21-278), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U01CE002780), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the US Department of Defense, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the Michigan Health Endowment Fund, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration via sub-contracts from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, has received speaker honoraria or travel expenses from the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, the International Summit on Suicide Research, the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries, the American Psychopathological Association, and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program, has been paid as a consultant by New York University, and has received products from Fitbit at a reduced cost and Headspace for free for research purposes. MLB has been supported by research grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (R37-DA15612), and a Koret Foundation gift for Smart Cities and Digital Living, has received travel expenses from the University of Maryland, the University of Auckland, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the European Working Group on Stochastic Modeling, INSEAD, the University of Michigan, and the University of Oklahoma, and has been a paid consultant to Compass Lexecon and DE Shaw. JPC has received a National Science Foundation EAGER Grant on Detecting and Disrupting Illicit Supply Networks via Traffic Distribution Systems, is a consultant to the RAND Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center, has consulted with or received honoraria from the Actis—Norwegian Policy Network on Alcohol and Drugs, the Arnold Foundation, Bank of Montreal, Boston University, the Foreign Affairs, Justice Research and Statistics Association, Lisbon Addictions Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, National Affairs, the National Institute of Justice, Oxford University Press, Pew, PIRE, the Russell Sage Foundation, Springer Verlag, Stanford University, the US State Department, Texas Research Society on Alcoholism, the US Veteran's Administration, Washington Monthly, and the WT Grant Foundation. JHC has received research support or funding from the US National Institutes of Health and National Library of Medicine (R56LM013365), the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF8040), the US National Science Foundation (SPO181514); Google (SPO13604), the Stanford Clinical Excellence Research Center, the Stanford Department of Medicine and Department of Pathology, and the Stanford Aging and Ethnogeriatrics Research Center (P30AG059307), which is part of the Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research programme led by the US National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health, is the co-founder of Reaction Explorer (which develops and licenses organic chemistry education software), and has been paid consulting or speaker fees by the US National Institute of Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, Tuolc, Roche, and Younker Hyde MacFarlane. M-FC has served as president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a justice of the Supreme Court of California, the Herman Phleger Professor at Stanford Law School, a distinguished visiting jurist at the New York University School of Law, the Castle Distinguished Lecturer in Ethics, Politics, and Economics at Yale University, a member of the President & Fellows of Harvard College (the Harvard Corporation), a member of the board of directors of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a member of the Council of the American Law Institute, chair of the board of directors of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, chair of the advisory board of the Seed Initiative at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and a member of the advisory board at the Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute. His work has been supported by Stanford Law School and by a grant from the Stanford Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Institute, and he was previously chair of the advisory board of the AI Now Institute at New York University. YLH has received research grants from the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA050323, DA048613, DA008227, DA043247, DA030359, DA037317, and DA15446), research funding from GW Pharmaceuticals, speaking honoraria or travel expenses, or both, from the University of North Carolina, the American Society for the Advancement of Science, the Society for Neuroscience Public Education & Communication Committee, Washington University in St Louis, Temple University, Tufts School of Medicine, Indiana University, the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, the Iowa Neuroscience Institute, the Franklin Institute, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, the University of Michigan, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the US National Institutes of Health, Penn State Hershey College of Medicine, the US National Academy of Medicine, the Mediterranean Neuroscience Society, the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, Society of Biological Psychiatry, International College of Neuropharmacology, the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies, Gordon Research Conference, the National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Research Council, and the Society of Neuroscience. DNJ has received research grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Ontario Ministry of Health, financial support from the departments of medicine at both the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, travel expenses or speaking honoraria from Dalhousie University, the University of Ottawa, the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Calgary, the Bloomberg Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the American College of Physicians, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the American Society of Nephrology, the Canadian Society of Internal Medicine, the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, The Canadian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Western Canada Addiction Forum, and the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Health, and payment for expert witness testimony from (and has been retained by) Sanis, a generic drug manufacturer and distributor to provide advice related to an ongoing Canadian class action, and is a volunteer member of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. HKK has been supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (77667, 74275, and 73359), the John Templeton Foundation (52125), the JPB Foundation (1085 and 439), and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (1584), has received honoraria from Jefferson University, Jefferson Health, the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, MaineHealth Center for Tobacco Independence, Harvard University Memorial Church, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the University of Wisconsin Medical School, Wake Forest Baptist Health (in partnership with Shaw University), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation advisory committee, the American College of Gastroenterology, and Tufts University School of Medicine, has been a consultant to the Commonwealth Fund, and is a member of the Community COVID Coalition Advisory Group, Phillips Academy Public Health Expert Advisory Panel, the Policy Advisory Group, the board of the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Palliative and Advanced Illness Research Center External Advisory Board (at the Perelman School of Medicine), the American Cancer Society Eastern New England Area Council of Advisors, the American University of Beirut International Advisory Council, the US National Advisory Board, the Culture of Health Year in Review Advisory Committee and Culture of Health as a Business Imperative Initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the editorial board of the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Donor Services board of trustees, the Josiah Macy Jr Foundation board of directors, and the Lancet–O'Neill Institute, Georgetown University Commission on Global Health and the Law. EEK has received research funding from the US Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development (COR 19-489, 1I01HX003063-01A1, 5I01HX001752-05, 5I01HX002737-02, 5I01HX001288-05, and 5I01HX000911-06), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (OPD-1511-33052), the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (5R01AT008387-04, 5UH3AT009761- 04/5UG3AT009761-02, and 4UH3AT009765-03/5UG3AT009765-02), and the US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (1U01DK123816-01), and travel expenses from the law firm Nix Patterson representing the state of Oklahoma (to serve as an expert witness in support of the state's litigation against opioid manufacturers), the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the Association of Academic Physiatrists, the Australian Pain Society, the Cleveland VA Medical Research and Education Foundation, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, the Foundation for Medical Excellence, the Foundation for Opioid Response Efforts, the Friends of VA Medical Care and Health Research, the Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, the Indiana Institute for Medical Research, the US National Academies of Medicine, the US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, the National Governors Association, the North American Spine Society, the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute at Stanford University, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. AL has received consulting fees for her work as a medical expert witness in federal and state litigation against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, book royalties from Johns Hopkins University Press and Dutton Penguin Random House, speaking honoraria or travel expenses, or both, from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, the Ohio State University School of Medicine, the University of Kansas School of Medicine (sponsorship of the Alpha Omega Alpha Visiting Professorship), the Oregon Pain Guidance, the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, the Perrin's Opioid Litigation Conference, the Public Funds Forum, the Baton Rouge Health District, the Montrose Colorado Annual Continuing Medical Education Conference, the PerformRX Pharmacy Benefits Manager Annual Conference, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, the Psych Congress, the 69th Annual Canadian Refresher Course for Family Physicians, the Ohio State University Inter-Professional Summit, the University of Texas, the Geminus Community Partners Annual Conference of Indiana, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, the Stanford Sierra Camp Womens' Alumni Wellness Retreat, the American Psychiatric Association, the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse, and the Southwestern Gynecologic Assembly. SCM has been supported by the Redlich Professorship and the Rosekrans Pain Research Endowment Fund at Stanford University School of Medicine and research grants awarded to Stanford University from the US National Institutes of Health (R61NS118651, R03HD094577, R01DA045027, R01NS109450, R01AT008561, K24DA02926207, R01DA035484, and P01AT00665105), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI OPD-1610- 370707), the Stanford Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, and the University of California, San Francisco–Stanford Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (FDA) (2U01FD005978-06), has received speaking honoraria or travel expenses from Walter Reed, Harvard University, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, Washington University, the US Food and Drug Administration, the US National Institutes of Health, the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the University of Washington, George Washington University, New York University, Weill Cornell Medical College, Duke University, the University of Utah, the World Institute of Pain, and the Canadian Pain Society, has received payment for testimony (unrelated to opioids) from Lauria Tokunaga Gates and Linn, and has received payment for consulting (unrelated to opioids) from the American Society of Anesthesiology; Favros Law; Fain Anderson VanDerhoef Rosendahl O'Halloran Spillane; Cox, Wootton, Lerner, Griffin & Hansen; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith; Muro & Lampe; McCormick Barstow; Schmid & Voiles; and the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center. LLO has received travel expenses or honoraria from Cardozo Law School, Claremont McKenna College, Duke University, ETH Zürich, Georgetown University, Harvard University, the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, Michigan State University, New York University, Northwestern University, the University of Chicago, the University of Houston, the University of Kansas, the University of Nebraska, the University of San Diego, the University of Texas, the University of Villanova, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and Yale University, has received a writing honoraria from the Brookings Institution (to write a policy proposal for the Hamilton Project), and is a paid consultant to the MITRE Corporation (to assist with evaluations of the US Patent and Trademark Office requested by the Department of Commerce). BS has received research support from the US National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01 AA023650 and K23 AA023284), the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (R21 DA043181), the US National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH115838), and the US National Highway Transportation Safety Authority, has received royalties from a software licence to healthStratica, and has several invention disclosures with the University of Pittsburgh for digital behavioral interventions. CT has been supported by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA HSR&D IIR 15-298, IIR 18-253, IIR 20-058, and PPO 16-337) and the US National Institutes of Health (NIAAA 1R01AA024136-01).

Background: Cannabis legalization and the arrival of nonmedical fentanyl are fundamentally altering North American drug markets. An essential part of that change is the ability to produce large quantities of these drugs at low costs, which is like a technological breakthrough in their production technology. This essay explores possible future consequences of these trends., Methods: Descriptive statistics, historical analogy and economic reasoning., Results: In North America, wholesale prices for cannabis and opioids - in the form of illegally manufactured fentanyl and other new synthetic opioids - are radically lower than they were a decade ago. Retail prices for cannabis have fallen commensurately, but not yet for opioids. Historical analogies suggest that very large declines in price can have effects on use that go beyond just an expansion of traditional patterns of consumption., Conclusion: For cannabis and opioids in North America, conditions are ripe for significant changes in not only quantities consumed, and associated harms, but also in the roles these drugs and their control play in society. The overall situation with these drugs may look more different in 2040 compared to today, than today looks different from 2000. There are no obvious reasons why these trends will not spread to other continents., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest None to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many nations place drugs into various "schedules" according to their risk of abuse and/or recognized medical value that vary in terms of their restrictions. To mitigate diversion or abuse, drugs sometimes get rescheduled or are scheduled for the first time. Until now, there have not been efforts to integrate lessons from across the range of such past events., Methods and Data: We searched for peer-reviewed evaluations of instances of (re-)scheduling drugs in the United States after 1969 and a comparably large set of instances from other countries. Those 109 articles were supplemented by 30 others found in other ways but not meeting those search criteria (e.g., because the information on rescheduling was a minor part of a more general article)., Findings: Findings are reported for many outcomes and with diverse measures over different timelines, making standardization of outcomes difficult. For more than half of the events for which quantitative outcomes were reported, there were declines in use-related measures by at least 40 percent. It is common for there to be reports of increases in indicators pertaining to other substances, sometimes more dangerous but sometimes less dangerous; overall, substitution appears to occur, but be partial., Conclusion: Scheduling and up-scheduling can - though does not always - have substantial effects on a range of outcomes. Substitution to other substances is a possibility and so should be anticipated., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest I confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. I confirm that the manuscript has been read by all names authors and that there are no persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. I further confirm that the order of the authors listed in the manuscript has been discussed and approved by all. I confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property. I further confirm that no aspect of the work covered in this manuscript has involved either experimental animals or human patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies of opioid prescribing patterns have shown that a small percentage of prescribers are responsible for a large portion of total prescriptions. There is some evidence that prescription opioid use may be similarly concentrated, but patterns may differ by population and choice of opioid utilization measure. The objective of this study is to determine what proportion of prescription opioid utilization was attributable to the top utilizers among Medicaid beneficiaries and how this proportion varies by the measure used., Methods: We analyzed 2008-2009 Medicaid claims data from 14 states and created three claims-based measures of aggregate opioid utilization: total number of annual prescriptions, total annual milligrams morphine equivalent, and total days supply. We tested two versions of the total days supply measure: one assuming consecutive use and the other assuming concurrent use of prescriptions., Results: The top 20 % of prescription opioid users accounted for 66 % of prescriptions, 82-85 % of days supply depending on assumption, and 90 % of morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The degree to which prescription opioid utilization was concentrated among the top 20 % of users varied minimally across states., Conclusions: A small percentage of prescription opioid users account for a large share of prescription opioid use. Policy efforts should use metrics pertaining to days supply and total MME, not numbers of prescriptions, to more efficiently target heavy utilization. Policies targeting high-dose prescribing should consider the different ways that overlapping prescriptions may be taken., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflict declared., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug use is often measured in terms of prevalence, meaning the number of people who used any amount in the last month or year, but measuring the quantity consumed is critical for making informed regulatory decisions and estimating the effects of policy changes. Quantity is the product of frequency (e.g., number of use days in the last month) and intensity (amount consumed per use day). Presently, there is imperfect understanding of the extent to which more frequent users also consume more intensively., Methods and Data: We examine cannabis flower consumption reported in three similar online surveys fielded in times and places where cannabis was and was not legal. These convenience samples returned enough valid responses (n = 2,618) to examine consumption across different frequencies of use via analyses of measures of central tendency, data visualizations, and multivariate regressions. Additional calculations incorporate data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health., Findings: Respondents who reported using daily (i.e., 30 days in the past month) consumed almost twice as much per day of use on average as did those reporting less than daily. We find only modest increases in intensity among those using less than daily, but then a substantial increase (p< 0.001) for those who use daily. Most respondents report that on heavy or light use days their consumption differs from a typical day of use by a factor of 2 or more, but only about 25% of days were described as heavy or light. We estimate those using cannabis 21+ days a month account for 80% of consumption vs. 71% of the days of use., Discussion: Daily cannabis users consume more intensively than others, including near-daily users. When possible, survey questions should move beyond the presence or absence of use and number of days used., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None, (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: This paper combines complementary attributes of web and general population surveys to estimate cannabis consumption and spending in Washington State. It compares those estimates to legal sales recorded by the state's seed-to-sale tracking system, and thus exploits a rare opportunity to contrast two independent estimates for the same cannabis market. This sheds light on the question of whether nontrivial amounts of black market sales continue even after a state allows licensed production and sale., Methods: Prevalence of past-month use is estimated from the 2015/16 U.S. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, adjusted for under-reporting. Estimates of consumption and spending per user broken down by age, gender, and frequency of use are developed from RAND's 2013 survey of cannabis users in Washington State. Supply side estimates come from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board's seed-to-sale tracking system. They are expressed in terms of spending, equivalent-weight of flowers, and THC, with THC for edibles imputed using a machine learning technique called random forests., Results: For the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, Washington's seed-to-sale data record sales from licensed cannabis stores of $1.17B and across all products an amount of THC that is equivalent to roughly 120-150 MT of flower. Survey responses suggest that amounts spent and quantities consumed are larger than that, perhaps on the order of $1.66B and over 200 MT, respectively., Conclusion: A perfect match is not expected because of sales to tourists, residual black market activity, production for medical purposes, and diversion across state lines. Nonetheless, the results suggest that three years after state-licensed stores opened, there remained considerable consumption of cannabis supplied outside of the licensed system., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Some countries allow physicians to prescribe pharmaceutical-grade diamorphine to dependent users who have previously undergone treatment but are still using street-sourced heroin; this is not allowed in the US. This study provides the first nationally representative US data concerning public support for prescribing diamorphine to dependent users. We also test the hypothesis that calling it "diamorphine" instead of "heroin" increases support for this approach., Methods: The RAND American Life Panel is a nationally representative, probability-based survey of US adults. Of the 3345 panel members invited to take the survey, 2530 (75.6%) provided a valid response to our question module. Respondents were randomly assigned to have the question refer to the prescribed drug as either "heroin" or "diamorphine." The groups did not significantly differ on sex, age, race/ethnicity, or education. We compare the distribution of responses for the two groups and conduct Pearson's chi-squared test with the Rao-Scott correction., Results: For those asked whether the US should try prescribing pharmaceutical-grade "heroin," the share answering "Yes" (20.8%) was 15 percentage points lower than those responding "No" (35.8%). When the question asked about "diamorphine," the results were nearly reversed: the share answering "Yes" (30.6%) was almost 12 percentage points higher than those responding "No" (18.9%). The distributions of responses were significantly different (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Support for prescribing diamorphine to dependent users is low in the US. While the results are consistent with the hypothesis that referring to heroin as diamorphine may reduce stigma associated with the substance and increase support for prescribing it, opinions may change as individuals learn they are different names for the same substance., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: Voters in eight U.S. states have passed initiatives to legalize large-scale commercial production of cannabis for non-medical use. All plan or require some form of "seed-to-sale" tracking systems, which provide a view of cannabis market activity at a heretofore unimagined level of detail. Legal markets also create a range of new matters for policy makers to address., Data: Publicly available data were obtained on approximately 45 million individually priced items purchased in the 35 million retail transactions that took place during the first two and a half years of Washington State's legal cannabis market. Records include product type (flower, extract, lotion, liquid edible, etc.), product name, price, and potency with respect to multiple cannabinoids, notably THC and CBD. Items sold can be traced back up the supply chain through the store to the processor and producer, to the level of identifying the specific production batch and mother plant, the firm that tested the product, and test results., Method: Data visualization methods are employed to describe spatial-temporal patterns of multiple correlated attributes (e.g., price and potency) broken down by product. Text-analytic methods are used to subdivide the broad category of "extracts for inhalation" into more homogeneous sub-categories. To understand the competitiveness of the legal cannabis market in Washington we calculate the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) for processors and retailers., Results: Cannabis prices fell steadily and proportionally at the processor and retailer levels. Retail and wholesale price maintained a roughly 3:1 ratio for multiple product types after some initial fluctuations. Although a wide range of edibles are sold, they account for a modest share of consumer spending; extracts for inhalation are a larger and heterogeneous market segment. The HHI indicates the cannabis market is highly competitive at the processor level, but less so for retail markets at the county level., Conclusions: Washington's state-legal cannabis market is diverse and rapidly evolving in terms of pricing, products, and organization. Post-legalization, researchers and policy makers may need to think in terms of a family of cannabis products, akin to how we think of new psychoactive substances and amphetamine-type stimulants, not a single drug "cannabis.", (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Cannabis legalization is often falsely depicted as a binary choice between status quo prohibition and legalizing production and distribution by (regulated) for-profit industry. There are, however, many more prudent architectures for legalization, such as restricting production and distribution licenses to not-for-profit entities. Wilkins describes how New Zealand applied that concept to gambling machines and proposes a parallel for cannabis legalization. Greater investment in proposing good designs along these lines, including attending to governance structures, would be valuable., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The U.S. appears to be on a path toward legalizing cannabis on the alcohol model, which is to say allowing for-profit corporations to produce, sell, and promote its use. Even after national legalization, it will take decades to observe the full effects on industry structure and behavior, or on use and misuse. However, we should not be surprised if after markets have matured and consumption patterns stabilized, legalization increases acute cannabis intoxication in the U.S. by 40 billion hours per year. This increase in use will be the most important cannabis-specific effect of legalization. The bulk of it will be consumption by daily and near-daily users, and it is possible that roughly half will be by people who meet the medical criteria for substance use disorder. Much resulting harms will be borne by the users, and their families, and the harms are not primarily "medical", at least not in the narrow sense. Hence, legalization replaces the current problems of crime and black markets not so much with a medical or public health problem, but rather with a problem of potentially excessive consumption of a "temptation good" whose acute effects are performance degrading, not performance-enhancing. As legalization removes formal social controls, it might be prudent for society to develop stronger informal social norms - akin to "friends don't let friends drive drunk" - to protect the public and more importantly the users themselves from the performance degradation of bouts of nearly perpetual intoxication., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Multiple layers of dealers connect international drug traffickers to users. The fundamental activity of these dealers is buying from higher-level dealers and re-selling in smaller quantities at the next lower market level. Each instance of this can be viewed as completing a drug dealing "cycle". This paper introduces an approach for combining isolated accounts of such cycles into a coherent model of the structure, span, and profitability of the various layers of the domestic supply chain for illegal drugs. The approach is illustrated by synthesizing data from interviews with 116 incarcerated dealers to elucidate the structure and operation of distribution networks for cocaine and heroin in Italy and Slovenia. Inmates' descriptions of cycles in the Italian cocaine market suggest fairly orderly networks, with reasonably well-defined market levels. The Italian heroin market appears to have more "level-jumpers" who skip a market level by making a larger number of sales per cycle, with each sale being of a considerably smaller weight. Slovenian data are sparser, but broadly consistent. Incorporating prices allows calculation of how much of the revenue from retail sales is retained by dealers at each market level. In the Italian cocaine market, both retail sellers and the international supply chain outside of Italy each appear to receive about 30-40% of what users spend, with the remaining 30% going to higher-level dealers operating in Italy (roughly 10% to those at the multi-kilo level and 20% to lower level wholesale dealers). Factoring in cycle frequencies permits rough estimation of the number of organizations at each market level per billion euros in retail sales, and of annual net revenues for organizations at each level. These analyses provide an approach to gaining insight into the structure and operation of the supply chain for illegal drugs. They also illustrate the value of two new graphical tools for describing illicit drug supply chains and hint at possible biases in how respondents describe their drug dealing activities., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studying markets for illegal drugs is important, but difficult. Data usually come from a selected subset of consumers, such as arrestees, treatment clients, or household survey respondents. There are rarely opportunities to study how such groups may differ from other market participants or how much of total consumption they represent., Methods: This paper uses respondent-driven sampling (RDS) of drug users in a mid-sized American city to estimate the shares of cocaine (powder and crack) users and expenditures that are attributable to different combinations of these groups., Results: We find that those arrested in the last year accounted for 34% of past-month cocaine users and 40% of past-week cocaine spending in the RDS sample. Augmenting past-year arrestees with those who received treatment in the past year increases these values to 44% (users) and 55% (spending)., Conclusions: Our results suggest that estimates based only on people who were arrested and/or treated in the past year would have to be inflated by 100-200% to capture the market totals. Adding those who own or rent their place of residence increased coverage in this study to 76% (users) and 81% (spending), suggesting that in theory the inflation factor could be reduced to 23-32% by supplementing data on arrestees and treatment populations with household data, although in practice rates of under-reporting by survey respondents may make coverage (sampling frame) a secondary concern for household surveys., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Various surveys now ask respondents to describe their most recent purchase of illicit drugs, as one mechanism through which market size can be estimated. This raises the question of whether issues surrounding the timing of survey administration might make a sample of most recent purchases differ from a random sample of all purchases. We investigate these issues through a series of questions which ask about the three most recent purchases, and about drug use., Methods: Data were drawn from 688 respondents in the Melbourne Injecting Drug User Cohort Study across the period 2008-2013 and 2782 respondents to the Washington Cannabis Consumption Study in 2013. Responses to questions about the most recent purchases were compared to larger subsets of all recent purchases., Results: For heroin, methamphetamine and cannabis no differences were found between the amount spent by participants on their most recent purchase and the average amount spent on three or more recent purchases. There were also no differences concerning the locations and types of deals, and the duration between consecutive cannabis purchases was the same for first and second most recent, and second and third most recent., Conclusions: Asking about the most recent purchase appears to be an economical way to learn about purchases more generally, with little evidence of substantial variation between the most recent purchase and other recent purchases reported by participants. In spite of consistent findings across our two surveys, further replication of the work reported in this paper involving other populations of users is warranted., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Opponents of harm reduction fear that reducing harmfulness might increase use, and opponents of use reduction fear that efforts to reduce use can increase harmfulness. We raise the possibility that both strategies have a role but at different points in a drug "epidemic"., Methods: We present a stylized two-state, one-control policy simulation model of the use vs. harm reduction choice when initiation stems from susceptible non-users interacting with current users., Results: Within this model, whether harm reduction is a good strategy can depend on the particular drug and/or country, the social cost structure, and the stage of the epidemic. The dynamic solutions also involve indifference curves, consisting of points where the decision maker is indifferent between two transients that will approach the same steady state in the long run. Depending on how overall prevalence feeds back to affect the likelihood a susceptible non-user will initiate after interacting with a current user, the model can have tipping points where small shocks can have amplified long-run effects. For most epidemic states, harm reduction reduces the present value of future social costs, but not near such tipping points., Conclusion: To the extent that drug use patterns involve feedback effects, any shock to initiation--from harm reduction or any other source--can produce changes in use that are more than proportional, or less than proportional, to the shock. Hence, advocates in the use vs. harm reduction debate may wish to explain why their preferred policy is particularly appropriate at the current stage of a country's drug use trajectory, rather than arguing for universal applicability of their preferred programme.

Data on illicit drug purity and prices are invaluable but challenging. Academic purists argue they are unsuitable for economic analysis [Manski, C.F., Pepper, J.V., Petrie, C.V., 2001. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, Washington, DC], but in practice they are used frequently [ONDCP, 2001a. What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs. Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House, Washington, DC; ONDCP, 2001b. The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2000. Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House, Washington, DC; ONDCP, 2004. The Price and Purity of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2003. Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House, Washington, DC; Grossman, M., 2004. Individual behaviors and substance use: the role of price. Plenary Address for the 24th Arne Ryde Symposium on Economics of Substance Abuse at Lund University, Lund, Sweden, August 13-14, 2004]. This paper reviews data and conceptual issues that people producing, analyzing, and consuming drug price and purity series should understand in order to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation. It also identifies aspects of drug markets that are both poorly understood and relevant to some of these issues. They constitute a useful research agenda for health and law enforcement communities who would benefit from better data on the supply, availability, and use of illicit drugs.